Slashdot Mirror
Firefox and the 4-Year Battle To Have Google To Treat It as a First-Class Citizen (zdnet.com)
Web monoculture is well and truly alive when Google cannot be bothered to make a full-featured cross-browser mobile search page. From a report: It has been over five years since Firefox really turned a corner and started to morph from its bloated memory-munching ways into the lightning-quick browser it is today. Buried in Mozilla's issue tracker is a bug that kicked off in February 2014, and is yet to be resolved: Have Google treat Firefox for Android as a first-class citizen and serve up comparable content to what the search giant hands Chrome and Safari. After years of requests, meetings, and to and fro, it has hit a point where the developers of Firefox are experimenting by manipulating the user agent string in its nightly development builds to trick Google into thinking that Firefox Mobile is a Chrome browser. Not only does Google's search page degrade for Firefox on Android, but some new properties like Google Flights have occasionally taken to outright blocking of the browser.
Sounds like a good case for an anti-trust suit.
I thought the days of delivering different content depending on the brand of browser was over. I guess some companies still think it is OK to provide different content to different platforms.
--
from a big huge american company with giant-sized marketshare? what the hell?
EUROPE?!?! DO SOMETHING!
(pretty please?!?! because we know the current u.s. administration won't).
Firefox is best browser i have ever use. But need some improvement like use Language translation option. So, we can read all language articles, news, and more things. Add this feature to firefox.
It was bad 10 years ago, when pages were “best viewed in Internet Explorer”. The fact that nowadays it’s Google Chrome rather than IE doesn’t make it any less bad.
Code your web pages using web standards, guys. Then, if things are broken in a particular browser - submit a bug report.
#DeleteChrome
And I don't miss anything. Use ixquick, duckduckgo, searx. Don't use Google, period.
It takes some time to get used to (with no tracking, the search engine knows less about you, that means you've got to think a bit more about your search terms), but who wants to degenerate into some kind of jellyfish attached to Google? Remember: their business model depends on this happening, whereas your sanity depends on this not happening. Google and you are not allies!
...In the same way Trump is getting 'respect' from Putin. Trying to imitate your competitor absolutely and completely is no way to help either of you. The only thing you're going to get in return is mild amusement from your competition, and an audience confused about what you're even trying to offer them.
Killing plugins/statusbar/etc. was basically sabotaging everything that made Firefox hold an advantage. Trying to compete as a Chrome clone, just makes it useless as a choice.
I'll stick with Firefox 56 until a new browser based on that version takes off.
Ryan Fenton
Does anyone get respect from Google search? I search for two words, word1 and word2, and right there on page 1 of the results are many that don't include one of the necessary words. Farther down are words that are similar but wrong. And, still on page 1 of the results are finds that include neither word. Some results have oriental characters and no English at all.
Google says there are 52,200 results. I click on the last page and it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 300 already displayed.", except that there were less than 200 hits, very few of which matched the criteria.
Google used to inform users of the size of each web page in the results. A search result that was 10K bytes might be a good hit, but a search result page that was 4MB was probably a spam page with a long list of random words.
Much additional information was available about each search result that is now denied us. Those of us who haven't forgotten know that the information is available. Google has simply decided not to give it to us. After all these years is there no competitor that can replicate the original search engine and give Google some competition?
...omphaloskepsis often...
You are a republican dinosaur.
Be going thru this bullshit if Microsoft had been crushed in court like it should have been in the late 90s.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Chrome should never have been allowed to gain a dominant market share. But Firefox conceded market share with dropping XUL and its numerous UI “experiments” too. Google should be forced to have a “browser choice” screen on Android to give other browsers a chance.
Because if you knew what you're talking about, you'd know that the progressive era anti-trust campaigns were started by REPUBLICAN Teddy Roosevelt.
#fail
Back to history class for you!
I realise it is a troll, but it is always worth reminding people that capitalism requires a well regulated market. Whatever you may think of it, if people contributing to the market are allowed to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise manipulate the rules of the game what you have is not capitalism. To what extent that already happens is left as an exercise to the reader. Google has been allowed to become a monopoly, which makes abuse far easier for them to abuse the market to the point it is difficult to avoid. Time for some scrutiny.
Using your monopoly in one market (search) to tilt the playing field for your product in another (browser) is a textbook example of anticompetitive behaviour. Browser products should be allowed to compete on their own terms.
Whined about it on this very site for a solid 5 years. Really really loved a lot of things about it, infact almost everything except performance, it's woeful when you load it up with many many tabs (chrome, is not like this)
Sadly, they fixed the performance issue, by destroying all their plugins and switching plugin types, so I've stopped using it.
As for mobile systems, well that's sad too. Firefox is awful on mobile, just the interactivity with opening a tab. I tend to hold down "open in new background tab" - I always browse like this, always. Continue reading my article, read my followups after. The 'clickyness' and delay / sensitivity on the hold downs and font selection on firefox is terrrrrrible on mobile.
On the other hand, Firefox for mobile, I THINK supports plugins (of some kind) - I particularly miss the ability to "close tab if already open elsehwere" when you open a link. That's very useful. But no plugins on Chrome mobile.
Be careful with "well regulated", that's a tricky expression. It does NOT mean "under control of government regulations". It means "kept in proper condition, ready to function as soon as needed." That's how it is used in the Second Amendment.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Seriously, even the threat will have Google doing anything to accommodate. They have a business model based entirely on a search monopoly. They'll put a lot of effort into keeping it.
If not the government, then who else? Even the most rabid Randian accepts that there needs to be a small function of the government to keep order, unless you are an anarchist or plutocrat?
It might happen, if Firefox ever becomes a first class browser. The fact that it's still pathetically slow and troublesome, despite that absurd claims made for it, must surely prevent it being recognised as worth an install.
User-Agent headers, and browser fingerprinting in general, are the worst idea ever made for the web.
Seriously, put up standardised content. If it doesn't display, either you code is not-to-standard, or their device is. Guess who suffers? The party who skimped on their implementation (i.e. you because your website doesn't work for your customers, or them because they can't get on standard websites that others can).
The second we said "Okay, so what are you accessing it on, so I can fix my rubbish site to take account of your particular quirks", we lost the point of the web.
It's the word. "Government" is a trigger word to many people. What I suggest is that everyone involved in the market band together to elect some officials to act as referees, keep law and order and generally ensure that everyone behaves. We can call such a system a "Squeedily spooch". Together, we can form the best damn squeedily spooch this country has ever seen.
One of the big issues with restrictive access to web content concerns video. There are so many sites [MSNBC, CNN, Top Gear, others] where Firefox simply doesn't work, yet pretty much everything on YouTube does.
I think this is simply a case of lack of support for HTML5 standards. Well, that and the fact that it also locks out the non-Windows, non-Mac community.
Good to see that all those tax dollars we put towards anti-trust protections for citizens are well spent...
In the same sense that they're free to fart in the Elevator and piss on the walls in a public restroom.
I am frequently amazed how Americans manage to make things be about the right to be able to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The definition (from Merriam-Webster) of capitalism is:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
And once again history repeats itself. Microsoft stole the crown of evil from IBM back in the late 80s-early 90s, now Google has conclusively stolen the mantle for themselves by doing the exact same anticompetitive bullshit.
I wonder who the next one will be, and how long it will take Google to stop being evil (a point which IBM have already reached; Windows 10's slurping shows that MS aren't there yet).
which just proves that america is just a bunch of clones.. which in turn explains the whole star wars clone crud, and trump, bush, raegan, clinton, nixon etc...
I am frequently amazed how Europeans make everything about obeying authority.
Firefox really turned a corner and started to morph from its bloated memory-munching ways into the lightning-quick browser it is today.
What the fuck? Did anybody else notice this sentence? Firefox was lightning quick 15 years ago. But they gradually added social media bloat and plenty of other bloat over the years, and now it's slower than ever. It used to be a 4 MB download, now it's 60 MB.
Except the comment you are referring to, didn't do that. The comment that you are referring to was making a point about 'well-regulated market' suddenly jumping over to be about the 2nd amendment.
Try harder next time, idiot american troll.
A fair point, well made.
I've been using only Firefox on all my android devices. I just now installed an agent switcher and switched it to Chrome and wow! Google is packed with features now. WTF!
Thank god for dark mode on FF.
Google and others, WHITE SUCKS
White websites are shit.
Its so yahoo 1999.
Yeah - slashdot too, ugly as fuck as its white - great with plugin making it dark.
White is ass shite ugly.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Seriously, it's pretty much illegal what they're doing.
in a realy free market, cheaters and liars would immediately be pushed out by consumers who wont fall for their crap
How many people would need to die each time a food producer decided that adding a little melamine for the flavor is good for business?
Yeah, sure the company would be driven out of business sooner or later, replaced fast by similar one or even worse one.
But it would really suck to live in such society.
Here's a hint: dealing with this shit AFTER the BAD THING happens is too late. That's why regulations telling the makers beforehead are a good thing.
Not so fast. What makes you think consumers will behave as you expect? Eventually they will be overly critical of small problems in products/companies you care about and will ignore glaring issues in products/companies you despise.
The consuming public is no great arbiter of good and evil.
That sounds like the Windows vs. Linux debate. On both sides.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Which translates as
"We can and do do anything and everything to screw up products from other companies that might take even $0.0000001 of advertising revenue and data slurping away from Google"
All clear now?
I am frequently amazed at the European penchant for being obsessed with and normally critical of how other people choose to run their own countries.
Look at your own EU glass house before being so fussy about what your neighbors are doing in the privacy of their own homes.
Okay...
American, by any chance?
Did you mean "to have Google treat it"? Those damn prepositions are so difficult, aren't they...
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
There is if you want it to actually work in the real world. Dictionary definitions are pretty much useless here. There is nothing wrong with private ownership and profit motives and they routinely benefit society greatly. That said, we have centuries of evidence that in more than a few cases we have to make and enforce some rules to keep things moving smoothly. Anyone who denies this fact is either clueless or has ulterior motives.
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies.
Only in some cases. Monopolies are not universally a bad thing - in some contexts they can be quite helpful. Utilities for example actually have the lowest costs when there is a monopoly. In some industries achieving a monopoly would be a good approximation of impossible even with no regulation of any kind. But in all cases any monopoly needs to be examined closely and regulated to some degree. I can think of no case where an unregulated monopoly has been a good thing for society.
Kill off extensions and watch what little market share you had disppear: http://gs.statcounter.com/. They are at 5.17%. The highest they ever were was 31.82% in Nov, 2009. They stopped innovating, got political, became a Chrome copycat, and lost everything.
Some of us Europeans are pissed that there is a EU in the first place to tell us how to behave in our own countries and force free-market privatized everything like we should be another US.
It is okay. That's called "freedom of choice." It may or may not be a good business move, but they're free to do that.
The concern is that it ceases to be a choice. We almost had that unfortunate state of affairs with Internet Explorer before Firefox came along and it wasn't good. If Google manages to make Chrome a de-facto standard then they effectively can push all other browers out of the market and start establishing "standards" at will that favor them and them alone. This is not an idle or trivial concern.
I hate Google. That's why I don't use their products. That's my choice. You have the same option.
I have better things to do than to waste my time hating a company. I tried that in the past and it was a waste of time. Google is fine as long as you understand what they are and what their motivations are. I use some of their products but refuse to tie myself to them (or anyone else) exclusively. Their search engine works very well and their email services are pretty useful. I sometimes use their maps applications. All of those have alternatives if I become dissatisfied with any of them. Many people like Android and that's fine too if it suits your needs.
Does anyone remember how Microsoft played similar games with DR-DOS by deliberately making their programs crash, complain, or do strange things when said programs noticed that the operating system was DR-DOS rather than MS-DOS? It's the same thing but with different players.
Incorrect.
You are making the assumption the monopolies themselves are not engaging in an astroturfing campaign to convince the public their existance is not a detriment to them, and the most concrete way to do that is to attack the definition of words in order to ensure maximum confusion so that the public cannot form a concrete opinion. Of course, we all call it "spin", but noboy likes calling it what it really is; psychological warfare.
"What I suggest is that everyone involved in the market band together to elect some officials to act as referees, keep law and order and generally ensure that everyone behaves"
This sounds like the definition of trade unions (the guild-like ones maybe). Or a chamber of commerce. I have observed that in discussions people come up with some idea about how things should be done or be run, and the idea is not even wrong - it's been applied for centuries already. I know I did, or my mom did : great idea X is a good idea, but it's right there in your insurance contract or tax code or regulations or treaty or case law or ... :)
>"Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it."
Pure capitalism *is* perfect, in theory. Unfettered capitalism works great assuming perfect information availability, perfect freedom, and perfectly educated and informed consumers. The problem is that doesn't happen like that in the real world. Hence, the need for some limited regulation to help stop monopolies from taking over and destroying competition.
The tricky part is striking the correct balance of "regulation". Once you start over-regulating, everyone loses just as much as if there were no regulation (through stifling of innovation, lack of initiative, higher prices, poorer quality, and ultimately fewer choices).
VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
2853852 572864 138152 S 0.0 14.2 0:57.29 firefox
It eventually climbs up to 50% (it stops and dies there, because I run it with ulimit)
logic and have it interpreted by the client's software.
The IDIOCY of the current web environment is staggering.
Move then bitch liebchen
I am frequently amazed how Americans manage to make things be about the right to be able to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.
You ... literally just defined government. " the right to be able to {officially} kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger"
Instead of accepting [...] that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
The GP does seem to have done this. I would say that they conflated capitalism with a free market, which is an idealised economic concept, assuming perfect information, zero transaction costs, etc. (Much like an ideal gas in physics, an ideal free market depends on assumptions which are never quite met, but are close enough for it to be a really good model under most practical circumstances.)
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies.
This, however, is false. Pure capitalism is very resistant to monopolies: if someone is charging monopoly prices, another capitalist will undercut them. When monopolies arise in capitalist systems, it is usually through legislative capture, when regulatory bodies ally with specific market players - and when state regulation has that much control over the market, what you have is no longer capitalism.
This instance, for example, is a consequence of copyright law, which is a textbook example of regulatory capture. Under a pure, unregulated capitalist system, someone might copy Chrome and sell it under their own brand, or copy websites that break Firefox compatibility and serve their own (ad-supported) versions. But current copyright law - with its massive expansion over the past 50-100 years - forbids such things.
I am frequently amazed how Americans manage to make things be about the right to be able to kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger.
I think the true problem in the US is the fact that people want to have rights without responsibilities. I have nothing against anyone owning a gun so long as they take responsibility for it and store it, and its ammunition, in a safe manner. The problem is that people often neglect to do so because they're paranoid about home invasions and other such things that, while they do happen, are statistically unlikely to happen to any specific person.
Relevent XKCD
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
"This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy."
Why do you hate Adam Smith?
This sounds like the definition of trade unions.
You realise the consumers are part of the market too, right? Oh, you didn't. Too bad.
Stop being a d*ckhead Google, fix your shit.
https://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
if people contributing to the market are allowed to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise manipulate the rules of the game what you have is not capitalism.
Actually, that sounds exactly like capitalism.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Capitalism doesn't result in a "realy free market", that's why government controls are needed.
1. Mozilla treats firefox users with contempt, doesn't care because users are just little fish.
2. Mozilla bitches and moans that they're being treated with contempt by a bigger fish
LOL
That the majority of people CHOOSE to use Google for search does not mean Google has a monopoly in search. There are plenty of other options for you, me and everyone else to choose from.
There also zero barriers of entry to the search market. Anyone can launch a new search engine; grab yourself some web hosting and a script in you're in business.
If that is what you think the second amendment is about, then you badly need a history lesson.
The second ammendment is about the right to rebel against an unjust government who holds us under their boot. That is what the entire bill of rights is about. The rights we as citizens have and the government should never even think of taking away. We just celebrated our independence, surely this should be fresh on your mind?
You ... literally just defined government. " the right to be able to {officially} kill other people at the squeeze of a trigger"
It is sad how limited view you have of government. Legal execution of people is in no way a requirement of governing said people. In the majority of countries in the world it is illegal for anyone to execute any of its citizen (sans self defence).
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Firefox needed to die a decade ago.
Google blocking it is probably the only humane way to go.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
It's the defining characteristic of government. Want to know who the government is, in a location? It's whoever can legitimately send armed men against you to enforce their will.
What about pissing on the walls of an elevator?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
If guns are readily available, then nutters and dope fiends, and your average maniac can get old of the guns and go on a murder rampage.
If guns are less available then there are less nutters on the rampage with guns. A small number of non-nutters could be mildly inconvenienced, but mildly inconvenienced is better than dead.
In general, if your government is not allowed to go round killing people, and Putin is not using Facebook to goad a bunch of dimbos, then the ballot box is a good way to control your government.
If you need guns to control your government, that is a civil war - see Syria, Yemen and Somalia for examples of how that will go. No government is definitely worse that almost all governments, probably including Assad and even Saddam.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The definition (from Merriam-Webster) of capitalism is:
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
This, free markets require necessary regulation, capitalism requires no such thing. There has never been a true capitalist economy, unlike communism which has been tried and failed, pure capitalism failed before even getting off the ground. Almost all successful economies are mixed, neither pure capitalist or socialist.
OTOH, free markets can be strangled by too much unnecessary regulation. Its a balancing act.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Not necessarily with the intent to kill you. In Europe we have hostage negotiators, not hostage executors.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Newsflash: The most important aspect of July 4th to me, personally, was my grandmother's birthday. It is not a celebrated holiday in Europe.
And again, this isn't about my perception of the second amendment; it's about how the comment I replied to jumped from talking about regulation of business in a free market to said second amendment without even stopping to take a breath.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The problem here is that people generally mean an economy which follows free market principles when they use the word capitalism. One of the principles of a free market economic system is that the market be "well regulated", which, as another poster pointed out, does not mean government regulation (although those might play a role). One of the keys to well regulated markets is that information be allowed to flow freely and that those who commit theft and/or fraud be identified and punished.
In a truly free market, monopolies are exceedingly rare, and always short-lived. Even in the types of free markets we see in the real world, monopolies only last any length of time when the government intervenes in the market to protect them...and most monopolies came into existence in the first place because of government regulations. I only know of one monopoly which managed to form without government regulations which created the environment which led directly to its formation and even that one can be argued.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
K, you avoided that war thing I see.
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies. Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfect, people try to change the definition of it.
Um... ok, you "win", let's say that capitalism doesn't by definition require regulation. Now that that epic and meaningful battle is over, can we get on with talking about how regulation is needed EVEN IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE DEFINITION?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
That's society in general. Societies rely on people subscribing to the ideals/rules of that society. Those of you ranting about "hurr dur gubermints dun kills peeple" fail to understand that whether it's governments, warlords, anarchial leaders, clubs, families, tribes, clans, or brotherhoods, the factors that allow their existence is that some people may be forced to act a certain way. There is no alternative. Anarchy has never and will never be a thing. People seek to be lead and others seek to lead and the few retards who refuse to conform are outcasted. The only difference is that in the past it was easier to just kill them off. Now they just suck at society's teats as "freemen" and "Sovereign Citizens".
Before you accuse America of being a violent place, you should look at your own neighborhood first. Look at the numerous deadly vehicle attacks in places like London, Stockholm, Nice, and Berlin. Look at the gun attacks in Norway and Paris. Look at the bombings in Manchester, Paris, Brussels, and other cities. Look at the frequent grenade attacks in Sweden. Look at the train ax attack in Germany. Look at the knife attacks, including some beheadings, in London and Germany. Look at the nerve agent poisonings in England. And most of those have happened within just the past several years! I'm sure I've forgotten several other big ones, as well. It's difficult to keep track of them all since there have been so many incidents in so many different places.
Don't give us this nonsensical spiel about how Europe is 'safe', while America is 'dangerous'. If anything, it should be clear that it's the opposite: the violence in America is actually quite tame compared to what we've seen in Europe recently, and even then most shootings in America are just black ghetto gang members killing one another, rather than random people being targeted like in Europe's violence.
Tor Browser conspicuously features duckduckgo.com as the preferred search engine.
Microsoft provides search services for Duck Duck Go, so much that Bing's results are commonly identical. Firefox can and should promote Bing in all of it's guises.
The startpage.com search engine appears to be based in Europe, and seems to continue to outsource to Google although this branding was recently removed from the home page.
It is Firefox that should demote Google to a second-class citizen, immediately opening an incognito window on startpage.com for Google searches and potentially launching a Tor process for it (which they are in discussions to bundle). Firefox should loudly begin work to sandbox gmail, maps, drive, and all other Google properties.
A few press releases of this, without even beginning work, would likely get Mozilla everything it wants.
If not the government, then who else?
The people. After all, that's who the governemt is supposed to be of and for in this country.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
For most of us it's more about the right to be able to put holes in paper targets from a distance, but you go on and think we're all murderous pricks. That we may also use those weapons to defend ourselves if someone should break into our homes is secondary for a lot of us, because we really don't have much fear of that actually happening.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Except the comment you are referring to, didn't do that. The comment that you are referring to was making a point about 'well-regulated market' simply used the 2nd amendment as an example of a specific usage of the term 'well-regulated'.
Try harder next time, idiot euro-troll.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Your interpretation of the second amendment is wrong, which is made obvious by the fact that you needed to explain to somebody what "well regulated" means in a totally different context. Clearly, it doesn't mean what you claim it means.
Not enough of you, apparently.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yes, and the negotiations come down to "release the hostages or we kill you." If killing wasn't an option, they'd be a lot less effective.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"kept in proper condition, ready to function"
Insofar as your interjection of this definition, I would agree; as that definition does not contradict the GP's statement:
"if people contributing to the market are allowed to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise manipulate the rules of the game what you have is not capitalism"
Keeping capitalism in proper working order would probably require some sort of governing body and oversight, and the ability to provide corrective measures.
Don't expect anyone in the EU to understand that; after all, Britain is still a member of the EU and they were the target when we needed to first enact that amendment. Hell, that was 15 years before it was even written!
To them, it does appear that we're all just a bunch of murderous fucks, because we had to be in order to escape their rule. Apparently, they haven't gotten over it in the past 242 years.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So you'd be fine with keeping your gun stored in a central locker at the shooting range?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
It went from talking about the definition of "well regulated" to an example of where that definition was actually used. Do you have a better example? No? The sit down and shut up.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
F-Droid has a browser implemented with the system Webview that disables Javascript by default, and gives you a one-button enable.
Privacy Browser does not offer extensions, but it does have a few more useful features, including blocklists and Tor integration.
I hope that you find it useful.
For it to be sustainable, yes, actually.
Absent some sort of regulation (even self-regulation works), all of the money ends up on one side of the table; then, you no longer have a market and capitalism has failed.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Browser fingerprinting is big business. Tor Browser constantly throws warning dialogs for sites using the canvas element in attempts to uniquely identify your machine.
Tor Browser also warns you not to maximize it, as your monitor size is also useful tracking information.
And I'd argue that the referenced definition means "Under control instead of random hillbillies that like to shoot at redcoats", but what do I know.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Google is a more than bit like M$ and as a monopoly controls access to its market.
Google will continue to treat any competitor to any of its products as second class citizens unless forced to change by a regulator or a judge .
That somewhat violates the secondary concern I stated; unless the range I have set up in my back yard counts, in which case, yes, I'd be fine with that because it's already what I do.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Well maybe the damned redcoats should have stayed out of the random hillbillies' back yards?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The few who refuse to conform are the ones that save women and children from certain death, and overthrow evil. Check you history troll and find out who is responsible for evil. It aint "freemen".
Folks - before you panic, this is about firefox on ANDROID.
This has got to be a small % of users. 1% of android browsing usage maybe? Anyone have hard numbers? Where does opera mini and QQ etc fall in the share? I'm not seeing a ton of firefox android users out there.
Ok, it's a troll, but some points are interesting to debate.
First of all, antitrust is a valid instrument of course. Sometimes, bullies have to be tamed. "A man gotta know his limits."
> I actually applaud Firefox for doing the RIGHT thing here and trying to win by engineering.
This is what bothers me most. Some things must be done correctly. Engineering is a good way to build things, but it will always be about approximations, big enough added margins for safety and moving things into specific situations so as to deal with them -- like using "standard" screw sizes, and not the size you really wanted.
This problem is not Firefox-only (we should have more browser options!) and in fact it's about domination. The browser, this is obvious, is the single more important application one has to master in order to control the computer. In a way, it can be said it even surpasses the OS -- as it can be made to interoperate with several of these.
I'm not talking about cracking, viruses and the like. I'm talking about market domination. Right now Google worries about the majority of desktop and mobile users, because their interaction with the company generates revenue.
Since Linux, BSD and other OSes are less used, expect to have problems... not just because of Google, but because other OS providers want their OSes incompatible -- in order to keep Linux from growing.
And it's no different with Firefox. For example, in certain situations (e..g. when printing to a file), Firefox uses the gtk dialog, not the KDE/Qt one. And when the issue was raised it was clear that Firefox has bigger concerns, since it too must care about the majority of its users... which probably are on Windows. Karma is a bitch, eh?
We need healthier environments. I come from a time when the mere idea of creating second-class applications would get reproving looks. People were generally better -- sorry to say, but that's what we have today: glorified scum. And the scum decided they wanted money above the professional practice. No more being proud for doing great things, no more being proud of participating in a market. No, they are proud of being Dastardly Dick (TM of its owners) and need to use all the dirty tricks they can find to keep the competitors "malnourished."
Firefox is not treated as first class, but it was the same with Opera (or at least until they started to use Chrome's engine). Libreoffice is great and good enough for a plethora of uses, but if you want to interoperate with the most used suite, your life will be miserable. And most people will blame Libreoffice instead of seeing the whole picture.
Government is quite literally the mafia. You're forced to pay it for "protection." You don't get a choice and there's no one to protect you from the "protectors."
Do you like organized crime? If so, you may like government.
Ahh good old Trumpy whataboutisms. Considering those events happen far less frequently in Europe then we have shootings in America you did a good job proving his point.
This is already available in courts of private arbitration and is quite literally how medieval trade successfully economy functioned until it was destroyed by a crony alliance of kings and bankers. Study medieval Venice for the best-documented example.
Bullshit, it was about providing for the defense of the nation with out needing a standing army. Taking arms against the Government is sedition and illegal according to our Constitution.
You mean the amendment that allows people who need to compensate to kill children.
First you complain about bureaucrats telling you how to live.
Then you complain about privatization (read: free market / private property ownership).
So which is it? Do you want freedom or control? You can't have both.
Not only is market anarchy the natural state of man, it was the functional system for most of human history. You're just repeating statist talking points penned by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century.
Those rampages are a drop in the bucket by death rate annually. They are a non-problem.
If a company destroys all competition by bringing the best product at the best price, great. That's NOT a monopoly. If at any time that company ceases to perform, a new competitor can take it down.
Government is the only real monopoly. It forces you to pay for it, and you don't get a choice to say no, walk away, or take your business elsewhere.
The only way for a company to become an actual "monopoly" is when it is in alliance with the government. As usual, government is the negative factor.
A no true Scotsman fallacy requires changing the goal posts. Seeing as it was defined by the poster out of the gate, not as an exception to a rebuttal, that criterion does not apply.
What makes you think pure capitalists want to eat poisoned food? Are you really that naive? If so, you have no business discussing economics.
The fact is simply that capitalism is a better self-regulator than the government. Under the current system, with the FDA, people still get poisoned and die all the time.
It is kind of weird to us Americans that Europeans somehow imagine everyone as not being responsible and constantly need coddling from the state, particularly after millennia of warfare, bloodshed, totalitarianism, and worse spawned from their continent because of this trust in authority and refusal to take responsibility for themselves.
And no, the science is clear, there is no direct correlation between number of guns owned and the amount of gun crime. In the US, the correlation is in reverse. The more guns, the fewer gun crimes.
But it isn't about the guns, its about human lives. In the US, 30k people a year die through gun use. More than half of them suicides. In Europe, lets take this to an extreme and call the same number zero. And in the US, 88k a year die due to alcohol, but in Europe, that number is over 280k. Yet the drinking culture is applauded in Europe. What is worse, a caustic culture of failing to take responsibility leading to 280k deaths a year, or a caustic culture of expectant personal responsibility leading to 118k deaths a year?
Face it. You care more about avoiding fear and feeling the pleasure of intoxication than human life and are willing to twist facts and use insults to do it.
No government is definitely worse than almost all governments? How very British. India disagreed. So did the dozens of indigenous cultures your culture wiped out. Better for you perhaps. Better for people that want to be coddled and tipsy, but not for adults that want to have control over their own lives. Just take a walk on the wild side and go backpacking in the wilderness to compare government and no. The latter is far more peaceful, but untenable to those that can't take care of themselves.
Eventually some adult does have to take responsibility. Part of that is force of violence. Are you willing to be the adult, or do you want to get back to drinking your wine while the adults take responsibility?
So it's a civil war when you have a significant ISIL presence in your country waging war against the government and the people at the same time?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
You clearly don't know your history. The FDA was created as a response to poisoned cough syrup. Their first sting? Lead paint in cheese. Every cheesemaker in the US was doing it. Yes, people still die, but things are much better with independent oversight.
Does a driver's license give one the right to be able to run over another person at the press of a pedal? Yes, but the principal at stake is that of freedom and liberty. The second amendment enables some means of combating intrusions to a free society (though the means are feeling increasingly quaint, similar to the freedom of the press).
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
There also zero barriers of entry to the search market.
Of course, that's not remotely true. The bandwidth and storage required to actively trawl and index the web is non-trivial, and that's not including the R&D or licensing costs to get search algorithms on parity with google. And even if you could look up the algorithm in an expired patent library, having 40,000 active searches per second combined with well over a decade of historic data to help you refine your results simply can't be simulated.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Come on people. You are paying for a device to give you ads. You are the product.
Google primarily is an advertising company.
It’s not really that surprising they pull shit like this.
The user agent can be changed in Firefox, with a number of easy add ones, if one isnâ(TM)t technically inclined. Changes I have noticed are significant price differences for online shopping and even what websites are available. (Shopping on an iPhone is a good way to get the worst prices)
Ex. Windows 10 isoâ(TM)s Can be downloaded from MS if the agent is changed to Linux. Leave it at default and one is required to use the media creation tool. Same website, different results.
(If using Windows...flaming and trolls begin in less than 3 comments for not using Linux by default)
Fine. Now let's see your well-retulated militia. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept gun regulation based on the literal interpretation of the Second, or you accept that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militia and their members, those people, not People, and strictly speaking, not your crazy obsessed selfish and cowardly gun-toting ass. The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to protect your neighbor from tyranny, and not what your parroting of the NRA says. Stop being afraid, especially because you have nothing that anyone else would want to take from you.
Definitely. We need full gun confiscation from all civilians in the US. It's the only way our children can be kept safe.
It's the defining characteristic of government.
This is obviously a false argument. Because if it were true, it would mean that the majority of countries in the world does not have a government since they do not allow for their citizens to be killed. It is perfectly fine to have a government without it having the ability to kill its residents.
Want to know who the government is, in a location? It's whoever can legitimately send armed men against you to enforce their will.
The government has a violence monopoly (police) and freedom removal monopoly (imprisonment). Neither of those implies killing its residents as a requirement.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Yes we love squeezing-the-trigger on foreign busy-bodies. Mind yo business bitch while we do as we please.
Why not start by defining what it is you're actually talking about. You use the word capitalism but you're talking as if you mean free market. If you replaced every instance of capitalism with the word free market this entire discussion would make sense.
But right now, the only thing correct anywhere here is the dictionary definition.
In its pure form, capitalism has nothing at all to do with any discussion on regulation or monopolies, other than the fact an unregulated capitalistic system is unstable and ultimately leads to monopolies as the ultimate goal of the players is to break down the perfect market and gain an edge over the competition.
If person A is trying to imprison person B for life and person B pulls a gun on them, who is the one exercising self defense?
Interesting you bring up Saddam. His government was actually quite good -- it wasn't such a good place if you didn't like him being dictator (a woman from Basra once told me "the walls have ears" to describe the fear of talking), but for most people that really wasn't an issue. Just like most Americans are not directly affected by the shenanigans of our government.
On the other hand, if you were in the military you had to be careful: achieve a high enough rank and you became a threat (Saddam knew very well how military coups work) which tended to shorten your lifespan. One of the Iraqis I've known was a colonel who escaped before he got the wrong attention -- he managed to get his family to Italy on vacation before he fled the country. But too high rank and *attempting* to get your family out would be unhealthy.
We loved Saddam and Iraq right up until a particular fiasco. For one thing, he had the decency to participate in a proxy war for us for eight stinking years. And that was a vicious proxy war. No war is good, but some are worse than others.
Saddam's government wasn't particularly corrupt and it generally governed the populace well. For its failures, it was definitely better than what happened after we deposed him.
War is legal execution. An enormous function of government is handling external threats to the people. Sometimes external threats have guns. Sometimes governments kill these threats.
The Merriam-Webster definition I just looked up online is (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism):
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
In other words, it include investments and fair competition which your definition excludes.
Also to be sure, we don't have any pure capitalist countries anymore than we've ever had pure socialist countries.
Unchecked monopolies lead to concentration of power, and will lead to influencing the state sooner or later, leading to the ultimate corruption and disabling democratic processes.
One might regard that as a form of capitalism.
Another form of capitalism is the "market economy", which is actually what has made us succesful in the 20the century. Market economy relies on fair markets and fair competition.
Monopolies destroy market and fair competition, leading to disaster.
What sheltered little school did you graduate from?
Totally disagree our social structures evolved because people seek to be led. Society will always have cheaters and parasites, those who would steal from others rather than contribute to the society they were born into. There were/are entire civilizations based on the stealing/conquering of other lands rather than being self-sustaining. Every society that has survived that period has laws and police to regulate the internal civilian cheaters, and has a military to defend against an outside society attack for its resources or people. Good people sometimes lead because they felt nobody good was volunteering, and bad people want to lead to unfairly help themselves and they need to be regulated by law as well.
War is legal execution.
Which is completely irrelevant to this discussion which was about what defines a government in the normal case. War is an extreme exception to the normal, peaceful operation of a government.
The only way I guess your view could be so skewed that you think war is normal is if you live in a country which has been participating in wars almost every single year since 1950, has a massively oversized military (around 4% of the world's population but has around 35% of the world's military spending (used to be around 40%)), and aggressively market itself as "the good guys" (more below) .
Many countries involved in WW2 teach a "war is bad, look at all the bad things that happened" philosophy to children born after WW2 (although Japan is shamefully largly avoiding admitting its own mistakes and take more a "war is bad, (only) look at what happened to us during the war" approach). In USA this is considered problematic since its oversized military is based on voluntary participation, and with an honest "war is bad" teaching that would severely negatively impact enrolment. So instead they take a "well, we do not have to be that honest about war is bad" approach and instead endorse military worshipping, completely ignoring president Dwight D. Eisenhower's warning that
... we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
See subject: Your MASSIVE FAIL in this life is you're nothing more than a chattering little do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" online & you know it...
* Is that the best your "phantasyland FAKE NAME" (for your fake lie of a so-called 'life') can manage?
When a FAKE NAME do nothing like YOU does better than I have? Then talk (you're all talk & no action)...
You can't help you're an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol! I blew you away in TONS OF PLACES and easily dust your no-mind bullshit blatherings.
APK
P.S.=> The TRUE PRICE of your UNIDENTIFIABLE FAKE NAME do-nothing selves like you that I can ALWAYS CASH IN ON (lol) is that I can use FACT/TRUTH on them to SHATTER their all TOO fragile delusional egos that they actually know A DAMN THING in computing, lol... apk
Not quite, although I'm not sure why you would take the example of backstabbing bloody Machievellian politics as an ideal to aspire to. Those courts ultimately had the backing of public authority, including diplomats abroad; to take a slightly different example the Champagne fairs involved far more public authority than was originally thought, so its not as cut and dried as you make out.
found the libtard
Graduate? School?
dear god... the cyanide pills, they do NOTHING!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
And no, the science is clear, there is no direct correlation between number of guns owned and the amount of gun crime
Correct. Many other countries have as high or higher rates of gun ownership with much lower gun crime and gun death.
It's not guns. It's Americans with guns.
Hmm, actually, that's pretty much what the GP said. I think you missed their point.
but in Europe, that number is over 280k
Care to break that down per capita? And cite sources?
Even better, would you care to comment on the difference in drinking/alcohol culture between Russia (ranked 1st for deaths attributed to alcohol) and Spain, or Italy (153rd and 162nd, respectively). The US is 64th for reference and has a much more homogenous culture, for its population, than 'Europe'.
Face it. You [...] are willing to twist facts
Yeah, about that ...
and use insults to do it.
I'm not sure calling mass shooters 'nutters' is an insult. Perhaps you were offended by referring to people who may have been swayed by Russian Facebook posts as 'dimbos'.
Part of that is force of violence
That you conflate 'being an adult' with a necessity for violence speaks volumes of your culture. I rather think you've made the GP's point for them.
(caveat, I'm from neither the US nor Europe. I don't think reducing guns or access to guns in the US is going to solve gun violence. I think income inequality is a significant part of the root of the problem. It tends to track pretty closely to violent crime across cultures, and the areas of the US with the highest levels of inequality tend to have the highest levels of violence, crime and hence violent crime.)
To be fair, there were 17250 murders alone in the US (not including suicides) in 2017, versus 723 murders (of all kinds) in the UK in 2017. Turning that into a percentage of population, the murder rate is almost 5 times higher in the US than in the UK, so the view that you're all just a bunch of murderous fucks does have at least some justification.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The murder rate in the USA is around 5 times higher than what it is in Western Europe, so there is some justification to the "murderous pricks" reputation.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
>Instead of accepting this and thus that pure capitalism is not perfe
Some Western countries did and have a LONG time ago. But the agenda is still being pushed forward by those in power.
Whereas another Western country fully embraces it from top to bottom
Granted.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
...when Firefox persists in trying to be a second-rate clone of Chrome?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
No. We simply need sane gun regulation.
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else" --Churchill
Casteism
No, that's dishonesty (fraud), failure to perform contractual obligations resulting in harm to another entity (willfully, this again is fraud and/or theft if consideration was given), and theft again.
Capitalism is a social system where people's individual rights to property are respected and people exchange stuff, mutually in agreement about their intent to do so and where no one makes them do it.
Foreign-policy-wise, this also means not only free trade and no protective tariffs, but also *no special privileges*.
Intent to start there? No. But there's always, 100% of the time, either the implication of the use of force for failure to comply or the actual use of force.
A *legitimate* government does not START things, but it does employ the use of force to END things (violation of an individual's rights).
Note that this is a property-of type statement, not a definition-of - i.e. a necessary, but not sufficient condition - of a legitimate government.
It is absolutely stunning how Sillycon Valley gets away with their treatment of people.
Only in the United Corporations of America.
Is that overall or per-capita? Assuming it's per-capita, you must be looking at (and misinterpreting) this.
While the murder rate for the Americas is about 5x that of Europe (as a whole), that includes all of North, Central, and South America, not just the US. The murder rate in Europe is 3:100,000, whereas it is 5.35:100,000 in the US; not quite double. If we restrict to Western Europe, it's still about double; unless you include the French territories of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which reside in North America (as that page defines it, at least) have a per-capita murder rate 3x higher than the US.
That's right, outside of the mainland, gun-free France has a higher murder rate than the US; and by a greater factor than the difference between the US and Europe.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This isn't Firefox, the browser with a billion users.
This is Firefox for Android... which has several orders of magnitude fewer users, if I was betting.
That's... a pretty important bit entirely buried by the lede here.